If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: Staff will have to enable your account first after registration, click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

A little notice to all of our wonderful members and friends here at Broken.
We currently have posters here who have access to many previously unavailable Classic and Modern movies and we love filling requests.
Please do not be shy with requests, no guarantees, but if we have them, we'll post them.

string 'em up

the uk abolished the death penalty in 1965, following a sequence of contentious cases that left the public wondering whether the punishment was fitting the crime, and were the right authorities fit and capable of deciding this - even some cases of innocent parties being incorrectly hanged had happened, most notably timothy evans

recent times have seen calls for the death penalty to be reintroduced, with some internet campaigns and signature gathering petitions claiming that some 60+ percent of the public want it's return (polls taken in the 70s were even higher at around 70 percent)

so what do you guys think?

is it time for the death penalty to make a return to uk legislation - what arguments, either for or against, would you put forward to oppose or promote it?

obviously, we can't go back to the days of the 19th century, when hanging was seen as a just punishment for such crimes as "theft of any object worth more than 12 pence", "being in the company of gypsies for 1 month" or "strong evidence of malice in a child aged 7–14"

but we do have certain criminals in this country, convicted of multiple crimes, who will never be eligible for release, either through length of sentence or judicial recommendation, who will be housed at the country's expense for life

is the death penalty a viable alternative to jailing these offenders?

should the uk have the moral right, as a christian country where church and state are bound together, to even impose the death penalty?

It doesn't act as a deterrent as has been demonstrated in places where it is used.
Is the justice system sufficiently accurate to ensure that only those who are guilty would be at risk of the death penalty? It isn't in the US, for example.
For what crime(s) would it be seen as justifiable?
For those who can never be safely released, is this an easier way? Good question. But, once you allow it for one class of "unreformable" criminals, what is to prevent execution being used for other offenders?

I'm against the death penalty as I don't believe we should be in the business of killing our own people.
I'm totally for locking violent people up and throwing away the key, however. Way too often do I see stories of a murder and the guy had a long violent record. Letting these people out to hurt others is a fashionable trend now, and I hate it.

The death penalty does serve one useful purpose in this regard, in the US the threat of it allows criminals to make a plea deal down from death to life in prison w/o parole. Otherwise it would be a deal down from life in prison to the murderers getting out sometime.

The death penalty here also has such an exhaustive and lengthy appeals and bureaucratic process that it's actually cheaper to house an inmate for life than to execute them.

I also think that people in prison for life should be allowed the choice to end their lives, in some reasonable manner of their own choosing.

Firing squad, strapped to a big bomb, dropped from a helicopter etc., it'd be fun. It'd make a hit tv show, guaranteed.

Strapped to a big bomb would probably be my choice as it would be quickest

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Misrule For This Useful Post:

The problem is with what you concider more moraly questionable;
The death penalty - the government/the people implicated in the deaths of their own citizens
or
Effectively keeping a human being in a cage for their existance with the ongoing physical and psychological suffering that causes.

The problem with the first is that mistakes cannot be rectified. There have been too many cases of people convicted of murder and later the conviction proved unsafe or the true perpetrator being discovered "Dear Whats Your Name, sorry we executed you, turns out we were wrong . Best Wishes, Your Government." Is it truely acceptable for the state to murder even one innocent citizen in order to punish the majority of guilty murders?

The problem with the first is that as soon as you accept the inhumanity of the death penalty, you will begin erroding what "life" means. Here in the UK we have had criminal justice reformers present more and more evidence of the mental suffering caused by open ended sentences and as a result "life" now means 15 years in prison (which can mean as little as 10 years actually served for many). Is this a true punishment for the crime? and if the sentence is longer, would it not be a kindness end the prisoners suffering rather than to keep them caged until they are mentally and physically destroyed?

I don't have any answers but I do accept that ending the death penalty is more about a society wanting to feel good about itself than it is about justice for either the victims or the perpetrators.

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Arbiec For This Useful Post:

As we've seen in recent times in the US, the snowflake society we live in is far happier to allow fundamental evil to survive despite having personally decided on the death penalty for their many victims. Corporations have developed a 'conscience' and refuse to supply the drugs to end life, whilst often visiting misery, and even death, in their 3rd world production installations.

If the UK did have a proper life sentence, and not this farcical life means few years in a prison, with better conditions that our old people, haven taken into account you being on good behaviour whilst you were on remand i.e. not killing anyone else, then I'd accept that we have a justice system worthy of the name. As it stands, I couldn't say that we have any deterrent whatsoever to anyone minded to commit a capital crime. Unfortunately, with the left wing, touchy feely 'poor Adolf had a troubled upbringing' agenda only gathering momentum, it's only a matter of time before multiple murders result in a few hours community service, but only if that's OK with you...

As far as miscarriages of Justice go as a reason to keep down the current path: technology has moved on since the high profile 'mistakes' of the past so there's less reliance on subjective evidence.

As far as appeals go, I'm happy with applying the same rights that they gave their victims.

As far as miscarriages of Justice go as a reason to keep down the current path: technology has moved on since the high profile 'mistakes' of the past so there's less reliance on subjective evidence.

Have to disagree here. There is always new research into forensics that can start to erode and occasionally discredit accepted theories. Sometimes they're caught early, other times not. As an example, "bite mark" science is slowly starting to see rejection. "Blood splatter pattern analysis" was used to convict Julia Rea of killing her own child and she was only exonerated 13 years later. Even if the research is sound, there is always going to be some kind of human element (so possible bias, or maybe even malice) involved with the investigation, the results, or even the interpretation of the data.

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Persephone For This Useful Post:

What? Next you'll be telling me that ducking witches isn't scientifically sound anymore! Damn this progress: it proves us wrong for a while...

I don't see your comment as disagreement: I concur that the newer methods are identifying that older methods were less reliable and are finding miscarriages, and are therefore more sound as a direct consequence. I agree as well about this annoying human element we have in every part of society screwing it up for everyone - I've worked in HR for the last 20 years and really want rid of the 'H' part: come on the robot revolution!

I find your quoted case of Julie Rea as more of a sad reflection of the state of the US legal defence system, and also the impact of allowing religious zeal to remain in a grown up society, than an example of technological evidence failures - in fact there was next to no evidence in that case at all from what I've read on it.
I also don't get the whole drive towards plea bargains - it introduces an inconsistency that allows the rich to walk away with pointless sentences for admitting doing something slightly less bad.

The one positive move we've seen in recent years is letting the specially trained Met Police hit squads off the leash to deal with the moped criminals in an effective way at long last. Well, we were, until the snowflakes in charge got wind that those intent on assault & murder might get a wee skinned knee or chafed arm as a result of trying to escape justice & are looking to pull the plug on it all again....